[apitman]

You're right, I was responding to your comment directly and not taking context into account.

I guess maybe what GP is getting at is that with vhosts on IPv4 you need to have some sort of load balancer in order to share the IP, but with IPv6 you can flatten this out and give every host it's own IP?

[remram]

If you have multiple machines with their own IPs, v4 or v6 makes no difference. If you have a single machine (vhosting), the number of IPs and their type makes no difference.

[apitman]

The difference is IPv4 addresses are far more expensive

[remram]

I will quote the comment you are trying to justify:

> With ipv6 they can now be fully scaled easily but they are absolutely awesome, much easier to scale because you can give your client a simple list of sse services and its essentially stateless if done right.

If you don't understand it either please stop saying random stuff about IPv6 that we already know and has nothing to do with this thread.

[apitman]

I stand by my comment. I think the suggestion that scaling might be limited by IPv4 cost is a reasonable guess as to OP's concerns.

[remram]

How is it limited? How is it less limited with IPv6?

A client gets an SSE endpoint (hostname). That endpoint maps to an IP. A server at that IP receives the connection. Which part is better with v6?

Are we talking about the few cents it would cost you to give each server an IPv4? Are we thinking about a distant future where that cost is not negligible compared to the cost of compute? Something else?

[apitman]

AWS is now charging about $3/mo per IPv4 address. If that's negligible for you, awesome. It's not negligible for everyone.